How is it possible that a president of a country can close the airspace of another country?
How can the extrajudicial killings of (over 80 by now!) alleged drug traffickers
without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity.
I'm convinced at some point in the future U.S. citizens will have to learn what war means.
> How can the extrajudicial killings of (over 80 by now!) alleged drug traffickers without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity.
It's _been_ accepted for years, if not decades now. Ever since the US started drone striking people without trial, or via trial in absentia, this has been the new normal. It being against international law is meaningless if no one care what the international law is, and especially if other countries are also breaking the law in the exact same way.
> How is it possible that a president of a country can close the airspace of another country?
It is a de facto declaration of war, focussed (on its face, it has other propaganda and diplomatic purposes) on informing civilians of the imminent actions and associated risks so that they can conduct themselves accordingly.
> How is it possible that a president of a country can close the airspace of another country?
To be fair, closing airspace before engaging in air operations is an international courtesy. It reduces the chances of downing civilian airliners. (In a similar vein, announcing closures and then not following through is incredibly damaging.)
> alleged drug traffickers without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity
They are war crimes.
If you're concerned about it, call your representative and tell them you care about the American military committing war crimes. There is currently momentum on the issue [1].
It cannot be a war crime if there is no war. There is no declaration of war and no approval of Congress. The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
(Under U.S. law, I do believe they are war crimes given they're an abuse of war powers, whether exercised legally or not.)
> ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity
No, it did not. A "former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC)" told the BBC "US air strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats would be treated under international law as crimes against humanity" [1].
I haven't seen the ICC take an official position on any of this, which is expected, since it's a judicial body that grinds deliberately.
"War crimes can only be committed during times of armed conflict, either international or non-international, as understood under international humanitarian law. While it is necessary that the crime in question was committed during an armed conflict, this is in itself not sufficient: the crime must be sufficiently linked to the armed conflict. This so-called nexus requirement is satisfied if the armed conflict played a substantial role in the perpetrator’s decision to commit the crime, his or her ability to commit it, or the manner in which the crime was committed.
In order to define an act as a war crime, this act must, besides having nexus to an armed conflict, be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and entail individual criminal responsibility."
I'm certainly not defending what is happening. I don't believe that criminal organizations meet the standard for an armed group that international law stipulates as required for an armed conflict. International law doesn’t work on intuition; it works on context and definitions.
People seem to think there’s some clever little gap between war crime law, US domestic law, and human rights law that mean a government can just kill people who pose no immediate threat and without any establishment of guilt.
There is not.
The Trump admin wants to say they’re invaders therefore we don’t need Congressional authorization, but they’re actually irregulars therefore we don’t need to follow Geneva, but they’re actually terrorists therefore…
> People seem to think there’s some clever little gap between war crime law, US domestic law, and human rights law that mean a government can just kill people who pose no immediate threat and without any establishment of guilt
International human rights law is back to being an aspirational ideal. Every one of the world's great powers have explicitly rejected it. (So have most of regional powers.)
I'd love it if Trump, Xi and Putin could be hauled in front of an international tribunal for the atrocities they've committed. But it isn't happening. Not to them. Nor to Netanyahu, Kim, Khamenei, Modi, Lukashenko or MBS.
At the end of the day, the only thing that can hold Trump and the U.S. military accountable is U.S. law. Bickering over what crime is committed under that law might be teidous. But it is a legitimate activity that could bring real consequences in a way bringing up what a former ICC prosecutor thinks does not.
> All of it is nonsense
This is lazy. Top of the thread. Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed. Dismissing that as "nonsense" enables and implicitly supports the illegal behaviour.
No argument about the enforceability of it. US law actually isn't even sufficient. The US body politic has to do it.
> Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed
But the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant. And that debate is endless for the reason I just explained: the Trump admin will play the shell game of defining the relevant legal framework as X when it suits them, then Y when it suits them, then Z when it suits them, despite the fact that X Y and Z are mutually exclusive of each other.
Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Well, all and none of the above, depending on who is asking for what reason.
This is legal nihilism and Schmittian Decisionism. The administration has declared itself unbound by law altogether. All that matters is calling it a violation, collecting evidence, and when political powers shift, holding the relevant parties to account. Under a non-nihilistic/decisionist legal framework, there will be no shortage of chargeable offenses.
That body politic remains, for now, grounded in voters. The number of calls Congressmen receive in the coming days about this issue will determine whether it's taken seriously.
> the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant
First step in any court opinion is the establishment of juridiction. That's important here.
Even in this thread, we have folks arguing war crime statute doesn't apply. That appears to be false. It's an example of why debating and establishing that this law is relevant in the popular discourse is important.
> Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Another reason to focus on U.S. law. I don't believe these distinctions matter under it.
Any time a state uses armed force against another state (and sometimes against other entities), there is a war in which there can be war crimes.
> There is no declaration of war
War is war whether or not it is formally declared. (And the Trump Administration has described that it is fighting a war against Venezuela for months, though it has characterized Venezuela as the aggressor.) This was, among other things, the explicit premise of the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act months ago.
> and no approval of Congress.
That might arguably make any war also a violation of domestic law, but from the standpoint of international law it isn’t particularly a meaningful argument against their being a war.
> The ICC classified these strikes as crimes against humanity.
No, an individual who used to be a prosecutor with the ICC, acting as a private individual, described them that way.
Part of the mechanism to make this possible is dropping the full weight of the DOJ and other three letter agencies down hard on anybody who dares to point out the illegality of many of the actions here.
eg: Pentagon Is Investigating a Member Of Congress Who Criticized Trump
is essentially direct retribution against elected members, former military members who merely state that serving troops are required to follow the law and the constitution first as a priority.
This wastes the time, money, and resources of those prepared to state the emperor has no clothes and serves as a dire warning to any other that might think to stand up.
How can the extrajudicial killings of (over 80 by now!) alleged drug traffickers without any charges or trials be justified or accepted? These are, in fact, crimes against humanity.
I'm convinced at some point in the future U.S. citizens will have to learn what war means.